Daragani Venkateshwarlu and 4 others v. State of Telangana and 6 others

Telangana HC15 Sept 2020WP/15326/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that material did not prove submission of a representation for police protection. Consequently, it granted liberty to petitioners to approach the SHO with supporting documents, allowing the SHO to extend protection or assign reasons within two weeks.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to file application before the 3rd respondent (SHO) with supporting documents, including the decree and interlocutory orders. The 3rd respondent to verify record and extend protection

Daragani Venkateshwarlu and 4 others Vs… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Telangana HC (2020)

¶1

HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Originat Jurisdiction)

¶2

TUESDAY, THE FIFTEENTH DAY OF SEPTEIVIBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY

Between:

rHE HoNouR^".=

*or==^ *oo

WRIT PET tTto"H:5!f,"=, N NO: 15326 0F 2020

¶7

1' Daraqani Venkateshwarru S/o. sayanna aged about 60 years, occ aqricurture . |r9 !t^{l^o s-18, Damarcheirarvl lniiirvrir.rlliJnil'oi.t,i"t} z. ^urra vazatatan. S/o lrJ39si2.fi aged a6out 5g yeirs Occ. Aoriculture ^^{R/o H No 8-140/3, Damarcheita(V)an"Olfr/ll,f.faiqonda District} 3 Parsani saidamma, wo rite'n6.LJt''ii"ilvvxgec About 40 vears, occ. .^{Housewife, R/o H No l-9, Boihatap;t;;(v)-dJ#,rrt"nor,} in,tl rurri"ri"r"b.irt,I"i

¶8

1. Palsani Prem Kumar, Slo tate V-intai i;ddy A;;; about 19 years, occupation -^{Studenl R/o H.No 1-9, Bothalapatem_fvjorrili.i"",r,} arv, Nrlst;;; Di.fi;i".' 5 Parsani Nandini. D/o rate vehiat nedoy-jg;i ioo..lt izlErr-6""c-'siro"nt R/o.H.No,1-9, Bothalapatem (V) Damarchi:rfi-1fr,,f) flafgonda b,rtri"L^{-- "'-""}

¶9

...PET|T|ONERS

¶10

AND

¶11

1 state of relangana, rep, by its Secretary raw and Home affairs secretariat

¶12

burldings, Hyderabad.

¶13

2 The Superintend of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶14

Station Home O.fficer, Damarcherla^{policdStation} Nalgonda District

¶15

4 lgl.,ortlYugha Naik, S/o Golya aged about 70 years. bcc Agrrcutture and Ex tr/.P I R/o.Damarcherla Villaqe and IVlandal. Ndloonda Distric-t

¶16

5 Lavoori Bichali. W/o lvlegha liaik. aged ahout 63"years Occ Housewife, R/o Damarcherla Villaqe and lVandSl, Nalqonda 6istrict

¶17

6 Lavoorr Sreenu, S/o M-egha Naik Age about 36 years. Occ. Agriculture. R/o. Damarcherla Village- and l,4andil, Nalgonda'District.

¶18

Lavoori Vijaya, W/o Rama Rao, Age about 32 years, Occ. House Wife. R/o.DamarcherlaVillageand-Mandal,NalgondaDistrict

¶19

...RES'ONDENTS

¶20

Petition under Article 226 of lhe Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be^pleased to rssue a writ order or direction more particularly one in the nature of [Vlandamus declaring the inactron of the respondents in^granting the^{police protectionin respect} of land in Sy.No.1141 admeasuring Ac 0.1Bgts situated at Damarcherla^{Village and} lVlandal, Nalgonda District as illegal, arbitrary, dereliction of duty^{and in gross} violation of right to hold and^{protect property} as the constitution^right

¶21

lA NO: 1 OF 2020

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{prayingthat in the circumstances stated in the} affidavit filed in support of the^{petition,the High court may be pleasedto drrect the} Respondents I to 3 to^{grant police protection in respect of land Sy No 1141} admeasuring Ac 0.18gts^{iituated at DamarcherlaVillageand Mandal, Nalgonda} District coveied under decree^{passed in O S 23412011dt13/3/2018'}

¶23

Counsel for the Petitioners^{: SRI M.VISHNU VARDHAN REDOY}

¶24

Counsel for the^{RespondentNos.1to 3 : AGP FOR HOME}

¶25

Counsel for the Respondent^{Nos.4to 7 : --}

¶26

The Court made^{the following:ORDER}

¶27

-t-

¶28

HONOURABLE^{SRI JUSTICE P'NAVEENRAO} TION^{NO. 15326 OF2020}

¶29

ORDER:

¶30

Petitioners^{institutedO S No'234of 2011in the Court of} grant decree^{of PerPetual} Senior^{Civil Judge,} MiraYalaguda^to The suit^{was decreed on} the defendants. Injunction^against 13.03.2018. Aggrieved^{thereby, defendants preferred A'SNo 33 of} 2018^which 1S pending consideration^{of the Appellate Court'} During the^{pendency of suit, petitioners were granted injunction} from interference^{in I.A.No 723 of 2Oi 1 and also police protection} was granted^{in I.A'No.959 of 201 1'}

¶31

Petitioners^{filedEP'No 7 of 2Ol9 seekingenforcement of} the decree.^{The saidEP is pending consideration of the trial Court'} The petitioners^{claim that on12} 'O9^{'2O2Othey submitteda} representation to^{the StationHouseOfficer arrayed as the 3'd} respondent in the writ^{petition. Allegingthat no action is takenon} the representation made by^{the petitioners togrant police} protection, this writ petition is^filed.

¶32

Material on record does^{not disclosethe proofof submission} of said representation seeking police protection.^{On instructions,} learned Assistant Government Pleader also submits that there^is no proof of submission of request for police protection and no application is pending with the police authorities.

¶33

In view of the same, no relief as sought for can be granted straightaway. Though there is merit in the contention of counsel for petitioners that all along petitioners had the protection consequent to the interlocutory orders passed by the trial Court

¶34

¶35

and decree was granted in their favour by the trial Court, alter the decree, no application was filed with the police requesting to grant police protection and therefore, it cannot be said that the porice are negligent in acting on the representation of the petitioners to grant police protection.

¶36

However, having regard to the fact that decree is granted by the trial Court and no stay is granted iy the appellate Court, liberty is granted to the petitioners to file application before the 3.d respondent with supporting documents including the decree and interlocutory orders passed earlier granting police protection and on submission of such application, the 3.d respondent shall verify the earlier record and if petitioners had the advantage of order of police protection granted by the trial Court and it was subsisting and ultimately culminated in the decree passed in their favour, the 3'd respondent may extend the police protection. If lor any reason, the 3.d respondent is not inclined to grant police protection, he shall assign due reasons in support of his decision and communicate the same to^{the petitionerswithin} two weeks from the date^{of such} application'^{This orderdoes not} come in the way of unofficial^{respondentsworking out their} remedies in the^{pending appeal suit.}

¶37

Accordingly, this writ^{petition is disposed of} Pending miscellaneous^{petitions,if any, shall stand closed'}

¶38

Sd/.K,SAILESHI ASSISTANT REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY//

¶39

SECTION OFFICER

¶40

¶41

1 The Secretary, law and Home affairs, State of Telangana, Secretariat buildings, Hyderabad.

¶42

The Superintend of Police, Nalgonda, Nalgonda District.

¶43

3 The Station Home Officer, Damarcherla Police Station Nalgonda District. 4 One CC to Sri M.Vishnu Vardhan Reddy, Advocate IOPUC] 5 Two CCs to GP for Home, High Court for the State of Telangana [OUT]

¶44

Two CD Copies

\ ]--

HIGH COURT

PNR, J

DATED:1510912020

1 H E S IA 14:
k
J
') lgSEPAM
<br>*
.S T

¶51

ORDER

¶52

WP.No.15326 of 2020

¶53

DISPOS!NG OF THE WRIT PETITION WITHOUT COSTS. st\ \C<sup>q" )p

Daragani Venkateshwarlu and 4 others v. State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daragani Venkateshwarlu and 4 others v. State of Telangana and 6 others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

G.NaveenKumar Vs The State of Telangana

Mahmood Mohiuddin Vs The State of Telangana and 7 others

Gaijala Yeshwant Kumar Vs The State of Telangana

Smt. B. Saritha Vs The State of Telangana

Smt K. Savita Vs The State of Telangana

Amerjeth Singh Sethi , Raju Vs The State of Telangana and 6 others